This attack by President Trump is an act of outright betrayal. Let’s not mince words- he made a promise that he would not worsen the situation with Syria. Now he has turned against this promise and acted even more aggressively than Obama has:

LIAR.

Trump had his chance, and he threw it in the faces of those who voted for him, choosing instead to follow in the necon path of war that Obama, Bush, and Clinton followed before him.

But in all fairness to Trump, he is really not doing anything different. Instead, he is just continuing a long line of evil policies that the United States has been following for the last century. Let’s take a brief look at American policy in the light of a few questions surrounding this “attack,” do some critical thinking, and we’ll put this puzzle together.

LISTEN TO ASAD in this clip. He is no fool and he knows a LOT more than what we are told he knows.

First (and to me, the most obvious) question: Why on earth would Asad decide now, of all times, to do a horrible attack against his own people?

If you are a regular shoebat.com reader, you know that we have been carefully documenting the conflict in Syria. We have reported regularly on the barbarity of ISIS and even on actions committed by the legitimate Syrian government. If you look back at our archives, you will see that President Asad’s government has done almost NOTHING in comparison to that which ISIS has committed, and when he has acted, he has done so against ISIS members.

President Asad is a figure who unites rather than divides Syria. Christians, Muslims, and pagans alike in Syria supported and continue to support him because while he is a Muslim, he has stood alongside all of the diverse groups in Syria and tried to keep them together. Except for Russia, he has done far more than the US or other Western Governments at actually helping the Syrian people in their time of need.

Which one is the real enemy of the Syrian people- the “evil dictator” Asad (above) or the “resistance forces” (below)?

At the same time, I also recall how we have been reporting for years on the connections between ISIS to the USA, Western European governments, and Turkey. As we have repeatedly shown and proven through our previous stories (for starters here, here, here, here, and here), the weed that is ISIS was watered, fertilized, protected, and propagated with the generous assistance of American and Turkish financial and industrial interests. The reason this was done was in order to create a social wedge which the US could use to dislodge various and current governments in the Middle East and replace them with malleable rulers that would allow for America to continue expanding her economic interests (primarily in the form of crude oil and rare earth mineral reserves) while at the same time attacking Russia. Syria was always a target because of her strategic geopolitical location as a crossing point between Israel, Iraq, and Turkey. If anything can be proven definitively, it is that the heinous crimes and genocide of the Christian people of Iraq and Syria, while committed at the hands of ISIS members, would not have been possible were it not for the direct assistance and support of the Americans.

Asad is a smart man. He is no fool. He knows what he is doing, he has his power and he wants to keep it. He is not going to attack his own people.

Asad knows all of these things. Even if he were an absolutely evil man with no good intentions whatsoever, he is a man of power whose family has been in power for decades. He knows how to gain and keep power, and he is not going to do something that is brazenly stupid which will cause his power to be in jeopardy- not after fighting as hard as he has and enlisting the help of the Russians to do so. Why would he give America and her allies any reason whatsoever to further push into his country when he has stated and shown repeatedly that he wants peace for his people and an end to the terrorism that the US has brought? It makes absolutely no sense for him to give the order to just randomly murder his own people with any kind of weapon and without explanation.

Second, one cannot understand the situation in Syria without looking at American policy for the last century.

Back in 1997, there was a think tank created called the “Project for a New American Century.” It was headed by the neoconservative William Kristol, and the purpose of the institution was to carve out a ‘new vision’ for America’s role in the 21st century to retain America’s position as the preeminent world power. The way the institution proposed to do this was, among other reasons, through destabilizing and toppling governments who did not submit to American economic or political demands under the guise of promoting “freedom” abroad and then institute puppet governments in these same nations. These actions would be carried out with willing economic and political allies in Western Europe, Israel, and Turkey. There were many nations targeted by PNAC’s reports for “regime change,” particularly in the Middle East. These included Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, and Somalia.

Many of these reports were formulated back in the 1990s and even earlier. It is important to understand that the policies which the US followed in the Middle East following the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks were already well established before the attacks happened. They did not exist as policies unto themselves, but were the modernized forms of policies followed for the decades after World War II during the Cold War, except now instead of being directed against the Soviet Union the target was Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States and her allies such as China.

Due to its geopolitical location and now the significant presence of crude oil and rare earth minerals used in modern industrial technology, the Middle East became the focus of the geopolitical conflict between the USA et al and Russia et al of the last century. Indeed, the Middle East has always been a place of conflict where various empires fought out their issues through proxy wars (before moving to direct war) going back to antiquity. The only difference between today and yesterday was the names, faces, and tools used, but still with the same objective, and that is the pursuit of power.

Third, the fact is that the USA has been pushing the “chemical weapons” charges against Syria for many years with the only claims of proof being political rumors in the same way which they leveled charged against other countries she wanted to overthrow. This has been the modus operandi of the United States going back to the conflict with the Soviets in the 1980s in Afghanistan.

Black Sabbath’s War Pigs. A fitting song for many policies for the last half century.

As I mentioned in my previous point, the conflict today is a power struggle being waged on behalf of the major industrial interests in America and the West which are all in turn controlled and directed by the major financial interests going back to World War II. There is absolutely no regard shown for the people at all except for a feigned regard in order to give the illusion of care so as to justify invasion.

Back in 1951, the Iranians considered themselves allies of the US and were a democratic country who had recently and democratically elected a new prime minister, Mohamed Mossadegh. Iran was for all intensive purposes a nation that wanted to imitate America and Europe. However, Mossadegh incurred the wrath of the West because he nationalized the Iranian Oil and Gas industry instead of allowing it to remain solely a private enterprise that could be exploited by foreign (American and European) Oil interests. The result was that the CIA deposed Mossadegh in Operation Ajax in 1953 and installed a “friendly” government which allowed for the continuation of business interests. The result was a rebellion from the Muslim clergy that lead to the overthrow of the Monarchy in the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the current state of Iran today.

While there is much talk about how much Iran “hates” America, when viewed from the lens of history, how would you feel if your supposed “friend” destroyed your nation so they could take your stuff?

In Afghanistan, the conflict was over access to the same crude oil and rare earth minerals, and the reason for getting involved in the conflict was supposedly to help the “plight” of the Afghan people. Certainly Afghanistan was in a troubled spot then- nobody can deny this- but its situation worsened significantly after the Americans became involved because in order for us to wage a proxy war against the Russians, we gave advanced weaponry and special forces military training to the various Islamic militant groups that dotted the country, and thus we created the Taliban.

American “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan, or the Taliban

Remember how after the Russians were defeated and the Taliban took control they began their massive purge against their own people which destroyed what was built of Afghan society and turned it into an Islamic cesspool. This was directly caused by US actions, but it did not matter to the US because the purpose was to keep the Russians out so our interests might benefit from that nation’s resources without any regard for the people who live there.

Donald Rumsfeld, remember this?

Iraq was a similar case. Remember that the USA once upon a time was BEST FRIENDS with Saddam Hussein because he was fighting a war against the Iranians (who were backed by the Russians), and after the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s (at the same time President Reagan was arming the Taliban), we then turned our backs of Saddam after he refused to submit to US demands. The result was the Persian Gulf war of 1991 and the subsequent US blockade on Iraq that caused millions to starve to death and greatly weakened the nation’s ability to survive. This is not to mention the use of highly destructive weapons such as bombs contained depleted uranium that poisoned large groups of the population and have caused long-term health problems.

Remember that when we went to war against Saddam, we accused him of using chemical weapons and specifically, poison gas against the Kurdish people. Now there is a considerable body of evidence on this which proves that Saddam, while he did mistreat the Kurds, did so as much as he needed to in order to prevent a rebellion in his own nation as the Kurds were constantly threatening to secede and form their own state of Kurdistan. Most importantly, it seems that when he did use chemical weapons, his targets were against the Iranians (who also used chemical weapons against the Iraqis), and that it is highly unlikely he ever carried out any intentional “gas attacks” against his own people.

Likewise, fast forward to the Middle East in 2001 with the “September 11th attacks.” We know for a fact that for many years, Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset- after all, his Taliban was created by the CIA to serve their ends. Does it really make sense that *suddenly* this man who we know and have been working with for almost two decades suddenly can pull off a massive, coordinated attack against major American targets and nobody in the government knew ANYTHING?

The more questions one asks about 9/11 the more questions naturally arise, but all of the questions ultimately have one generic answer that can be accounted for, and that is 9/11 was a complete set up that was more an internal job than an external one. It was the successful execution of the concept of Operation Northwoods in which a Islamic threat was supported, encouraged, and directly aided in carrying out its intentions so that the government could use it in order to justify military expansion into the Middle East, beginning again in Afghanistan and spreading to Iraq and the neighboring states.

Watch Colin Powell lie to the world to start a war of aggression

When the US invaded Iraq again in “Operation Enduring Freedom”/Persian Gulf II, we did so under the guise of accusing Saddam Hussein of having “weapons of mass destruction” and “selling yellowcake uranium to terrorist groups.” Both of these charges were proven to be patently false- they were outright lies that the US government under then Secretary of State Colin Powell spouted off before the entire world like a used car salesman making a pitch to sell a worthless car to a prospective buyer, and they were told because Saddam did not want to support the US. These lies were used as the basis to invade Iraq, murder Saddam, and set up a “friendly” government in his place, again, without any regard for the people of Iraq.

Muammar Gaddhafi of Libya suffered the same fate. Slandered and libeled in the American media, Gaddhafi was a hard but good ruler who looked out for the good of his people and even those in Europe who did not like him. It was Gaddhafi who killed Islamic terrorists and prevented massed of people from crossing his borders illegally. He protected the West from any “invasion” by Islamic and African peoples, and famously said just before his murder that as he was the only barrier in the way, he said “If I go down, Europe goes black“.

Muammar Gaddhafi. Say what you want about him, he cared for and did more out of his own means for Europeans, Africans, and Arabs than most “leaders” in the West ever did for even their own.

But again, as we have documented here on Shoebat.com the entire refugee crisis today is manufactured. We have shown how major industrial, charitable, and non-governmental organizations have been working directly with the governments of the West to bring millions of people into Europe as a part of lucrative contracts. The intention of this is to destabilized Europe so that the crisis can be used as a justification for starting a massive war to revive National Socialism in nothing less than a massive, raw power grab by Germany and her allies, especially Turkey, against Russia. Gaddhafi was an obstacle to this because he actually cared about people- European, Arab, and African- and his refusal to allow America and Germany to do what they want was why he was murdered.

An Ottoman Turkish official taunting starving Armenian Christians with a piece of bread during the genocide of 1917. America does the same thing today to many nations, except it comes in the form of foreign aid.

So then we come to Syria, where suddenly the “evil” President Asad- who is loved by all of his people and has worked diligently as I mentioned in the first point- needs to be “deposed.” Just like with the Taliban model, America has employed the use of funded-and-armed-and-trained terrorists at US taxpayer expense in the form of ISIS. Again, we at Shoebat.com have spent a long time showing through many sources how the CIA created ISIS with the help of the Turks and the Saudis. We do not care about the fact that Christianity in Iraq and much of Syria has been completely annihilated, and that those people went through a genocide. All we cared about is the execution of the policy.

Now that attempts to get rid of Asad have failed, and the USA has tried seven times now to condemn Asad on baseless charges of “gassing his own people” just like with Saddam and the Russians and Chinese have stood against it, this recent incident is being used as justification to engage in direct war in Syria. As we pointed out, the evidence is clear that just like with Saddam, the damage from the chemical weapons were the secondhand and accidental effects of destroying those same weapons which were in the hands of ISIS- a.k.a. America’s Islamic terrorist army. However, the government is just like with the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran for “freedom, just like with the charges of Saddam and gassing his people in the 1980s, just like with the support of the “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan against the Soviets, just like with the again baseless charges of “yellowcake uranium” against saddam in 2003, just like with the charges against Gaddhafi in Libya, all are baldfaced lies that no amount of lying can hide.

Fourth, the fact is that all of these interests do not give so much as a thought about anybody except themselves and what benefits them.

A Christmas Carol with George C. Scott (1984). This dialogue with the soul of Jacob Marley is very though provoking in the light of the wars that are taking place today with the wars of the bankers today, as Marley and Scrooge were both supposed to be bankers themselves.

Charles Dickens’ classic novel A Christmas Carol is exactly about this issue. Ebenezer Scrooge, a wealthy British banker, spends his life amassing a fortune while caring about nobody and at the same time hurting others. Fortunately, after being shown the evils of his actions and how it is leading to the death of others and including himself, he turns his life around at the end and chooses to live for good. While many people do not like Scrooge, I do because his story is meant to say that these very evil people in industry and finance still have a chance to repent and come back if they choose to do so.

A scene from the movie Charlie Wilson’s War, about the American support of the Taliban funded by the real Texas congressman Charles Wilson. The clip here speaks volumes to how we approach foreign policy as a nation.

Spare me the nonsense about “humanitarian” ideals for justifying America’s illegal and immoral wars. We have done NOTHING to help people in truly suffering areas that have been known about for decades and have suffered violence as bad or worse than what the Muslims have been doing in the Middle East- such as the Congo or North Korea- simply because they have no economic or geopolitical use for the industrialists and their owners in the big financial companies and banks. Any “humanitarian” aid we give as a government is done with a political intention in mind and no regard if it actually helps people or not because we view men as material chesspieces that we can move, replace, or destroy as we see if for our own ends. It is a complete Darwinist philosophy which uses “patriotism” and in the case of some conservative Christians, “Christianity” as a cover for what is the demonic manipulation of men’s life for private gain.

Fifth, this is all happening around Fatima and at the same time that a major commander from NATO himself said last year that World War III would start around this time.

I have written a lot about Fatima here at Shoebat.com- I suggest you go back and read my articles (if you have not already here, here, and here for starters), and then think about the fact that the Fatima revelations came during the end of the First World War and saying that, among many other issues, that if men did not make atonement for their sins, a worse war would break out, which was subsequently World War II.

In addition, Our Lady also noted to one of the visionaries, Bl. Lucia dos Santos, that the consecration of Fatima was to be done in the same example of the consecration of France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. As I noted in my article:

1)The Fatima revelations began in May 2017. This is basic historical knowledge about the events.

2)Sr. Lucia herself said that if Fatima was not consecrated, the Pope would follow the example of the “error of the King of France,” which refers to the fact that on June 17, 1689 St. Margaret Mary Alacoque was told that the King of France had to have France consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and he had 100 years to do so. He did not, and on that exact day- June 17, 1789- 100 years later, was when the king was stripped of his power and the French Revolution began:

As Sr. Lucia said in a message she received from Our Lady in 1931:“Make it known to My ministers that, given they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, they will follow him into misfortune. It will never be too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.”

Like the Kings of France who disobeyed the heavenly King’s command by delaying the solemn consecration of France for 100 years, the ministers of the Lord who do the same in regard to the collegial consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary “will follow the French king into misfortune.”

3)The Third Secret, while the text is not known, is said to have the same- but more dire– message as Our Lady of Akita in 1971. The Message of Akita is that if man does not turn from his sin, the world would be destroyed by fire

How interesting it is that May 2017 marks the 100th anniversary of the first apparitions of Fatima.

Kaliningrad, Russia and its place in the Baltic nations. Formerly the German territory of Konigsberg, it is a hotly contested area between Germany and Russia and into and around which both America and Russia have been moving nuclear weapons.

If that was not enough, recall how I wrote last year that a major NATO commander said that World War III would begin following a conflict in Russia over the Baltic nations:

A startling claim that the west is on course for war with Russia has been delivered by the former deputy commander of Nato, the former British general Sir Alexander Richard Shirreff.

In a book published on Wednesday, 2017 War With Russia, Shirreff argues that the events in Crimea have destroyed the post-cold-war settlement and set the stage for conflict, beginning next year.

In a chilling scenario, he predicts that Russia, in order to escape what it believes to be encirclement by Nato, will seize territory in eastern Ukraine, open up a land corridor to Crimea and invade the Baltic states.

Shirreff, who was deputy supreme allied commander Europe from 2011 to 2014 and before that served in Northern Ireland, Iraq and the Balkans, is risking his reputation by making such a bold prediction. But he claims his narrative is closely modelled on his Nato experience of war-gaming future conflicts.

His scenario is specific, naming Latvia as the first of the Baltic countries to be invaded, in May next year. Such specifics open him to potential ridicule.

Might I also add that for the past year, as I have been documenting, America and Germany have been building up weapons in Latvia right next to the Russian territory of Kaliningrad, which is historically a hotly contested area between Russia and Germany:

Konigsberg is called Kaliningrad today and is a part of Russia because Russia took it from Germany after World War II and renamed it after Stalin’s good friend and political ally Mihail Kalinin. They attempted to destroy most of the prior German presence in the city but could not. Kaliningrad is unique in Russia, for it is both a city (город) and administrative region (область), and like when it was a German possession, it is the only part of Russia that is not physically connected to the Russian mainland.

Kaliningrad is an unspoken but contested area between Germany and Russia because it is by its history and identity up until World War II a proper German territory that was annihilated by the Russian communists and is still held by Russia today, and for the most part Russia yesterday and today has allowed Kaliningrad to fall from being a once beautiful and highly developed area into a dump filled with disease and misery.

…

Americans have a very short historical memory, but people in the “old world” not as much. Kaliningrad is still Konigsberg to the German nationalist mind, and as Russia is properly upset about America’s recent and hegemonic involvement in Ukraine, Germany is still, albeit silently, highly displeased about watching their ancient city go to Russian hands and then in those same hands turn into a veritable third-world nation.

So after looking at all of these five pieces, what do I see?

I see that people who voted for Trump did so with good intentions. They did so to stop or mitigate another war. Yet in the past few days since these strikes began, Trump’s administration has done more against Asad in Syria than even Obama ever did. I do not say this as an exaggeration- Obama never unilaterally declared war on Asad and then used direct weapons against him, while Trump has. Make no mistake, I believe strongly that Hillary would have done what Trump has done now. However, Trump came as an outsider to politics and promised explicitly and repeatedly that he would not follow in Obama’s footsteps.

People say to give Trump another change. I do not. No president is perfect- I understand this. However, Syria is a huge and pressing issue which he has just betrayed the trust of the people who voted for him on even the most elementary of his promises about in a most flagrant way. Trump is no different than Obama or Bush II in essence, showing himself to follow the Neoconservative policies of his predecessors without any respect for anybody except the industrial and financial interests who want war so they can make more money and take more power through off the lives of others.

Fool me once, shame on you.

I see this policy being followed to its end conclusion, which will be a massive and terrible war. They know this will lead to war, because that is where they want it to go.

And has hard as it is for me to say, do pray these willing servants of policies born in hell meant to lead men on the path to perdition. Indeed, if they do not repent, that is where they are going.